While Fehr did not get into specific line-by-line details of the proposal, he did indicate that the players were willing to take reduced hockey-related revenue for the next three seasons and that it did not suggest the elimination of the league's hard cap.Fehr added that the union also asked that no changes be made in regards to player contracting rules.

Well that's very good news that the players are willing to take reduced revenues and not trying to get rid of the hard cap.

Even if it's the only change to contract rules though, they absolutely need to put some limit on length.

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." -- The Doctor

With what little info we have on the NHLPA proposal, to me the biggest sticking point is the CBA "snapping back" to the current one after three or four years. Unless Bettman allows these struggling franchises to fail, it's unrealistic to think that after a few seasons under this proposal things will be fixed enough that reverting to the current CBA makes sense.

"Union leader Donald Fehr says players could give up as much as US$465 million in revenue under the proposal if the league continues to grow at an average rate. If the league grows at the rate it has over the past two seasons, he says the amount could reach $800 million."

Today must be my "off day"...can someone explain to me WHY the players are giving this up??

Why would the Owners agree to return to the current system after three years of the new one? They have stated they have no interest in the current system and will not return to it. I wonder why this was even added.

"Union leader Donald Fehr says players could give up as much as US$465 million in revenue under the proposal if the league continues to grow at an average rate. If the league grows at the rate it has over the past two seasons, he says the amount could reach $800 million."

Today must be my "off day"...can someone explain to me WHY the players are giving this up??

Why would the Owners agree to return to the current system after three years of the new one? They have stated they have no interest in the current system and will not return to it. I wonder why this was even added.

My interpretation of it (which is a best guess given what few details we know) is this is the unions way of saying they'll cut the ownership a break for a few years while they get their franchises in order and figure out how to make these smaller markets profitable.

It doesn't seem very realistic that the owners will ever go back to the current CBA, but I think the NHLPA is at least talking about about the right issue, unlike the owners.

Well, I admit I am wrong. I thought Fehr and the players were going to lowball the union. This is good progress made by the players. Instead of being pricks like the owners, they took the high road and they put forward a good proposal. Lets see what happens with the owners now.

Surprise, surprise, Burke's tie is undone as to make him look frazzled and as though he has been working his butt off...

Or hammered/hungover. Note the way his face seems to be falling apart.

"If I were to wish for anything, I should not wish for wealth and power, but for the passionate sense of the potential, for the eye which, ever young and ardent, sees the possible. Pleasure disappoints, possibility never. And what wine is so sparkling, what so fragrant, what so intoxicating, as possibility!" - Kierkegaard

After finally getting around to reading that article, I liked that the players are being more reasonable than the initial dickweed proposal from the NHL, but at the same time, they didn't go into great detail as to what else was in the proposal and there's some things like contract length that seemed quite important to the owners. I hope that TSN isn't just leaving key info out of their stories to make a villian/hero scenarion with the owners/players. I'd like to see what else is in the players proposal. Don't want to read 8000 pages, but point form of each topic would be nice.

Bettman "its a little disapointing to not have their full slate of proposals with a month to go"

Bettman: "still a wide gap between us with not much time to go"

Bettman "sides are still far apart, different views of the issues"

Not surprising, as I don't think anyone expected the League to accept the PA's first proposal any more than the PA would accept the League's first offer. That said, sure seems like Bettman's trying to angle towards the player's being the ones dragging their feet.